Only registered users are allowed to post
|Reflections of a TV Viewer|
|Written by apocarthinic|
|Monday, 11 April 2011 07:07|
Willingly, we ask
THE HEATED ratings competition in the entertainment world simmered to wakefulness in the recent most polarized scandal that rocked local television.
New Television 5 and its host Willie Revillame stood at the end of the pole while on the other end, competing televisions and their gang of jealous zealots throw in the kindling to cook a palatable dish for the hypocritically critical Filipinos.
The ultimate goal of the gang is to tell that the self-made millionaire Willie is also the ultimate sex monster corrupted by his money and is now staking his claim as the one who could dictate the morals of a country.
Just because the "poor" boy needs the money, he can be manipulated to do a tasteless striptease in the blandest sense characteristic of the country's highly rating television shows.
Television networks, while it is the least of all concerns for Cortesanons, is a teacher as potent as what an average genius can get in half an hour of reading.
For asking the boy to sexily gyrate in front of the whole country glued to the boobtube is by the perception of the silent majority, an ordinary television fare.
But when some television networks raised the howl, we were shaken from our stupor and blended in our diyoys worth of wisdom.
Asking a girl to strip to her bare essentials is a noontime menu, in all local televisions, one may agree with us.
So far, there has not been much of a fuss about them, and not even the catholic church could afford to meet these networks head-on.
Many argue that the issue was not on making the boy do the sexy thing he was told to do. The issue was on Willie blatantly offering the already crying boy wads of money to willingly get into Wilie's rhythm or into his Willie's out of tune music.
Now here's the catch.
When has the whole country cared about the crying boy? And when do we, in the same hypocritical mea-culpa sense, not cry on the sexy ladies squirming like naked maggots in similarly timed noontime televisions?
Oh, but they are not dangled with thick wads of money, one friend told us.
Not in front of the cameras, we told him.
All of us know that in a situation where poor Filipinos are allowed to do what they want, stripping their bodies to bare essentials in front of national television is the least thing we would do.
We have come to a time when television has become a more effective teacher than the country's Secretary of Education and the President combined.
And we have come to a time when we angrily gang up on Willie because some television network and some popular human rights activists say it is against human taste.
What do they say against their own shows is that, in no time at all, even those skimpy bikinis on dancers can graduate into plastic strips worn to get handsomely paid on television?
Shows have so corrupted the country's sense of the obscene.
In fact, that mentality has seeped into the marrows of our sense of beauty and entertainment.
Televisions play a pivotal role in molding people's perceptions, perceptions which may, in the end, define the future of the town and country.
That role is also true to key molders of our people.
Parents, teachers, local officials...but we do not deal with all of them.
Let Cortesanon cite just one particular thing.
In the past weeks, we have seen many closing exercises and recognitions.
Most of them were embellished with numbers masked as intermissions but were in essence, vivid presentations of the reality of the country.
We have nothing against modern dancing in recognition rites.
What we tried desperately to reason out is that, if dance is also part of the entire genre of the whole gamut of performing arts, can they be done in such a way that dances and dancers becomes artistic and truly tell that these were not forced on pupils?
Most presentations we witnessed were the reality one would want to replay from the last menu offered on the noontime shows.
Children, yes, children wearing those outrageously copied styles of sexy dancers on TV, gyrating, sexily taunting, faces pink with make-ups that the mask that innocent blush of a kid trying to perform in an audience.
Were the children forced to sexy-dance? No. They were not. But we know when we were kids, we would rather obey our teachers than our parents.
The way the idea of grading pupils corrupts the minds like Willie's idea of money could force the boy to wriggle.
Was there a howl? Not that we hear of.
What if the presentations were cultural, would that change the perception?
We want to teach children to hate Willie for what he did to the boy?
Then, how do we solve the problem that we are covertly masking our sense of value to the reality that dancing sexy in front of the audience is so entertaining?
We can't. Because sexy dancing like we see on TV is how we are entertained!
Now, can we blame the teachers for choosing the easy presentations at recognitions?
And can we blame children for not crying on national televisions?
|Last Updated on Friday, 27 May 2011 02:33|